Disposed

N.C.Ashkar v. State by

Madras HC16 Dec 2015CRL OP/29818/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Crl.O.P., the petitioner sought direction to police to register a case based on a complaint regarding threats and alleged sabotage of a tenant structure. The Court directed the petitioner to file a fresh complaint, upon which the police must conduct an enquiry and proceed if a cognizable offence is indicated. The petition was disposed.

What did the court decide?

Police directed to conduct an enquiry after receiving a fresh complaint from the petitioner; to proceed if cognizable offence is indicated.

N.C.Ashkar Vs State by — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 16.12.2015

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.29818 of 2015

¶6

N.C.Ashkar ... Petitioner
Vs
State by
Inspector of Police,
G-7 Chetpet Police Station,
Chetpet,
Chennai 600 031. ... Respondent
Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482
Cr.P.C. to direct the respondent police to register a case on
the basis of the complaint given by the petitioner dated
26.11.2015 against the above said person named in the complaint
and investigate into the matter and submit a report to the Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Devendhiran
For respondent : Mr.C.Emalias
Additional Public Prosecutor
O R D E R

¶7

This petition has been filed to direct the respondent police to register a case on the basis of the complaint given by the petitioner dated 26.11.2015 against the named person in the complaint and investigate into the matter and submit a report to the Court.

¶8

In the petitioner, it is stated that the petitioner's father entered into sale agreement with the original owner one Mathew Chacko and was running a grocery shop. Due to his old age, the said shop was let out to one Sukumar. As per the rental agreement, the tenant shall not make any structural alterations in the tenancy premises. While so, without permission of the petitioner, the said Sukumar demolished the structure of the premises in violation of the rental agreement. When the petitioner questioned the same, the said Sukumar abused him in filthy language and threatened him with dire consequences.

¶9

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶10

Hence, he lodged a complaint with the respondent police. Since no action was taken till date, the present petition has been filed.

¶11

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that it is a dispute between the landlord and the tenant and he opposed the grant of direction.

¶12

However, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegation of threat is there and hence, the petitioner has sought for a direction.

¶13

In view of the submissions made on either side, this
Court directs the petitioner to give a fresh complaint before
the respondent police and on receipt of the same, the
respondent police is directed to conduct an enquiry and upon
enquiry, if the materials are gathered indicating any cognizable
offence, he is directed to proceed further in accordance with
law as early as possible.
6. The criminal original petition is disposed of
accordingly.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
vsi/ cla
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
G-7 Chetpet Police Station,
Chetpet,
Chennai 600 031.
2.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
+1 cc to Mr.V.Devendhiran, Advocate, sr.68648
Crl.O.P.No.29818 of 2015
sv co
kra 05.01.2016

¶14

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

N.C.Ashkar v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.C.Ashkar v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gayathri Karthik Vs Jyotsan Sivakumar

Hakkim @ Poonai Hakkim Vs the Deputy Superintendent of

Paranthaman Vs the Inspector of Police

L.Raja, Vs The Secretary to Government

Mrs.Pushpam Subbiah Vs The Sub-Inspector of Police

Venda Vs the Superintendent of Police